Friday, 26 October 2012

“Some well-trained and
able people traded on their name and relationship with a politician to
make a bunch of money. Seems to me that this happens in pretty much
every country. The less transparent the government, the more money can
be made, but it is par for the course in even the most open of systems.”

“"The chief executive
came under pressure from shareholders in Anglo American who demanded an
immediate change of management after losing confidence in her strategy
and leadership."
Shouldn't the fact that she is a female outweigh these minor concerns?”

Absolutely right. We should also scrap he and she and call everyone "it." Transgender people are such a large portion of our community, we should
be very careful not to offend them, lest they rise up and take over the
country.”

"Nobody wrongs me and
doesn’t pay for it," she says, referring to Cameron's 2011 jibe in the
Commons that the backbencher was "extremely frustrated". "There is a
saying: ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold."

Nice to know that she has her priorities right: the good of the country
and her constituents must take a back seat to her getting even for a
perceived slight. Pretty typical of the "I'm for me first" zeitgeist.

Any nation adapts its
war to the tactics of the enemy. Attacked by armies with divisions of
infantry and armour, they respond with divisions of infantry and armour.
Attacked by small-scale murderers, they respond with small-scale
murder. It may not be pleasant or morally comfortable, but it is
inevitable - and a far sight better than the deliberate bombing of
civilians in Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima.

“Difficult, but totally
understandable position. To some, God is both omniscient and
omnipotent, thus any act or event that occurs does so with God's fore
knowledge and - as God is able to prevent it - with His intent to allow
it to happen. Under this logic, all the various natural disasters and
human-led holocausts are things that God intended to happen.
Mourdock's God is not a very nice God, but He is neither inconsistent
nor incomprehensible. Question is, do we want representatives who
worship nasty Gods?

Ascribing evil motives
to ALL actions of a sexual predator is far more comfortable than the
idea that people are complex and may have both good and evil motives.
Easier does not mean better or more accurate.

Why do we need a sexist
reason to set a sensible policy? Why is this idea couched in terms of
gender, rather than in terms of the type of offense or offender? How do you square "...64.3% of women released from British prisons in
2004 were reconvicted within two years of release," with " the vast
majority of the female prison population would be of no danger to the
public."”

When someone commits an
imprisonable offense, they are saying that they do not consider
themselves a part of society to be bound by its rules.
Offering individuals who do not consider themselves part of society
control over that society seems the height of folly. It is like the UK
offering the vote to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland or saying
that, if Scotland becomes an independent country, their citizens will
still be allowed to vote in the UK.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.